The Role of the Jasmonate Response in Plant Susceptibility to Diverse Pathogens with a Range of Lifestyles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants defend themselves against attack from insects and pathogens with various resistance strategies. The jasmonate and salicylate signaling pathways are two induced responses that protect plants against these attackers. Knowledge of the range of organisms that are affected by each response is important for understanding how plants coordinate their defenses against multiple attackers and the generality of effect of different resistance mechanisms. The jasmonate response is known to protect plants against a wide range of insect herbivores; in this study, we examined the role of the jasmonate response in susceptibility to eight pathogens with diverse lifestyles in the laboratory and field. Recent biochemical models suggest that the lifestyle of the pathogen (necrotroph versus biotroph) should predict whether the jasmonate response will be involved in resistance. We tested this by examining the susceptibility of wild-type (cv Castlemart with no known genes for resistance to the pathogens used) and jasmonate-deficient mutant tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plants (def1) and by employing rescue treatments of the mutant. Plant susceptibility to five of the eight pathogens we examined was reduced by the jasmonate response, including two bacteria (Pseudomonas syringae and Xanthomonas campestris), two fungi (Verticillium dahliae and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici), and an oomycete (Phytophthora infestans). Susceptibility to three fungi was unaffected (Cladosporium fulvum, Oidium neolycopersici, and Septoria lycopersici). Our results indicate that the jasmonate response reduces damage by a wide range of pathogens from different lifestyles, a result that contrasts with the emerging picture of diseases on Arabidopsis. Thus, the generality of jasmonate-based resistance of tomato challenges the view that ecologically distinct plant parasites are resisted via different mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".